There is a jujitsu path to achieving equal rights for gay families in the early days of the Obama administration.
The strategy involves moving the focus off of Marriage - as a tactic - to rapidly attain national equal civil rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples early next year. And happily, the tactic has a moral dimension: today, "the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". As of 1996, this legal definition makes marriage a privilege, not a right - an instrument of division and segregation endorsed by the heterosexual majority. That means I and my mate of 15 years don't want marriage. We want equal rights. We want a civil union.
This tactic brings many key benefits. We can:
- have President Barack Obama 100% behind us, instead of fighting against us
- call the bluff of every 'religious' person who claims gays deserve equal rights, but not marriage
- attain the 1138 federal rights for all families without overturning the Defense of Marriage Act first
- enjoy equal rights in an institution even better than marriage
Please take Obama's proposal seriously, and proceed below the fold.
As heterosexuals committed to civil rights, my mate and I would feel dirty accepting privileges defined by adulterer Bill Clinton and multiple divorcee Bob Barr in their Defense of Marriage Act. We would rather get the same rights some other way - just like any family that avoids segregated restaurants and segregated schools.
Understand, we are NOT giving up on Marriage Equality, which my family has fought for for more than 50 years. Actually, I'm pretty sure California's Supreme Court will rule that Prop 8 was an unconstitutional effort to revise (rather than amend) the state constitution. But this is a call for something national - and something even better than marriage.
We sure don't want to fight for equal rights by fighting president Obama, or pin our hopes on him reversing his position. Obama's clear position is: gay couples deserve Civil Unions with equal rights - just not "Marriage".
And we really don't want to feed the narrative of "the left is angry at Obama over gay rights and it's making him stronger with Republicans" or to strengthen that meme. That's what we do when we blindly oppose Obama on this without a strategic plan. It doesn't get gay families any closer to attaining the 1138 federal rights - including Social Security, tax treatment as a family unit, family unification under immigration law, and access to a spouse's health coverage - that married people enjoy.
Instead let's imagine that Obama is wise and correct - not pandering to religious homophobes, but pointing to a mature legal strategy that gets every family equal rights before everyone gets Marriage Equality - and disarms bigots who use religion and "tradition" as excuses to fight against equal rights.
For instance, I have to admit - heterosexual marriages aren't exactly like white-only segregated schools where "separate but equal" rights mean the minority group must settle for something inferior.
In fact, when I think about it, it's the opposite. Like millions of new or lifelong romantic couples, we want our public commitment to be clean:
- a Union that doesn't require the endorsement of any adulterer, divorcee, or church.
- a Union with no history of women becoming men's property or promising to "obey".
- a Union that celebrates equal protection - with no history of denying interracial or same-sex couples their right to happiness and a family.
So by most measures, a Civil Union that comes with equal rights would obviously be less tainted by history - simply morally better than a modern Marriage. That's what we want!
(Here's a kicker: here in California, my mate and I are currently forbidden to have a clean civil union because we're an opposite sex couple!)
This approach changes the whole game. Now the only rules that need to change are:
(A) Nationally, couples with Civil Unions get the same 1138 federal rights as married couples.
(B) Heterosexual couples shouldn't be forbidden to have a Civil Union and forced into Marriage instead.
Obama has already endorsed (A). Let's get behind him!
Instead of fighting for Obama to change his mind now - foolishly feeding the "weak, angry left and gays" meme like so many writers today - let's focus and simply insist he keep his promise as soon as he's inaugurated.
In some ways this thinking is way outside the box. But (as with single payer health care), in Europe, Canada and much of the civilized world, civil unions endorsed by the state - available to all couples separate from religions, bigots, and power grabs by some majority - are increasingly normal.
What do you think? Take the poll.
UPDATE
Lots of great, thoughtful comments!
Several clarifications:
This is not about equal rights for civil unions instead of Marriage Equality. It's about getting equal rights immediately with the President's cooperation - something which almost no one has been discussing.
Two things are key for this proposal to work:
- all couples would have Civil Unions with the same rights - same-sex and opposite sex
- avoid the stigma of 'second class' unions by pointing out the objective and moral ways these unions are 'Better than Marriage"
This battle is concurrent with the Prop 8 CA Supreme Court case (with CA AG Jerry Brown now supporting full marriage rights), the New Jersey court's recent ruling requiring same-sex marriage (thanks pucknomad - excellent comments!) and a dozen other Freedom to Marry venues that should be fought, but which are unlikely to confer full federal rights on all same sex couples next year. This is about getting those rights immediately, with a mandate and no excuses, to every gay couple and family.
If Marriage Equality was never achieved, Marriage would become even more a symbol of our intolerant, segregated past. Heterosexuals with civil unions would become today's "whites in the civil rights march". In the end, churches would beg folks to marry since it would be like holding your reception at Klan headquarters.
Finally - to be blunter - I strongly disagree with Obama about "man and a woman" marriage and I'm disturbed by the way he inserts religion when discussing this topic. Still, we must examine this as a tactic that could be very effective, given we will have him as president for the next four years.